-
It's no surprise that a realpolitik stance raises questions of political legitimacy on the left, given that most ideas of political realism exclude moral bases. That's why we see more splits in Labour than parties further to the right — if your policy on warfare can be best phrased as a 'pause' by a technocratic front bench, that's a moral issue, and is right to be checked in my view.
That this is an inherent property of left-leaning politics in the UK might also suggest that those with a realpolitik bent should look at that problem and think pragmatically about solutions to it, rather than simply purging a considerable part of their party, and hoping that the conversation will move on.
A strong reading of 'he has no policies' is more that he has no transformative policies. If many of those that you've listed can be in a Conservative manifesto (more homes, noises about apprenticeships, net zero, and planning reform), then it's a status-quo position that's not particularly compelling to many.
Edit: or put more flippantly — Starmer's policy stance sounds more like a 'revenge of the technocrats' than a positive vision of the future.
You are reading a single comment by @slippers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
slippers
He absolutely has a coherent policy.
It's a policy of realpolitik looking ahead to how Labour are going to govern based on our strategic relationships with Israel and the US.
I appreciate that people may not like it, or agree with it, but there is nothing inconsistent or incoherent.
On the lack of policy detail - you may disagree with it, but they are deliberately choosing not to release policy details. The conference set out the vision - new homes, new towns, technical colleges and planning reform, Net zero, Ethics in public life. It's assumed that closer to the election these will be fleshed out.... although while Labour are doing their best to sabotage themselves it might not be the best time to get into it.